Look at the still image a 2:48 and tell me if you can see what is wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2LxmESkV0Q
Look at the still image a 2:48 and tell me if you can see what is wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2LxmESkV0Q
What am l missing?
the planes of interest are these
a 757
a 767
now look again at the pic JFK posted
now... that plane is neither a 757 or a 767.
it has what looks like two rear mounted engines like one of these
http://flightlineaviationmedia.com/planespotting/2-engines-tail/
now.. that what you were aiming at?
That is part of it.
( both tower impacts were 767's, Shanksville and the pentagon were 757's )
What was the weather in NYC on 9/11/2001 ? ;-)
the planes of interest are these
a 757
a 767
now look again at the pic JFK posted
now... that plane is neither a 757 or a 767.
it has what looks like two rear mounted engines like one of these
http://flightlineaviationmedia.com/planespotting/2-engines-tail/
i'd say a dc9/c9 or Boeing 717 would be my guess
now.. that what you were aiming at?
that the picture was taken on 9/11?
good question
It was implied that that pic was taken on 9/11 because the documentary was about 9/11... Specifically the jumpers.
Either way that pic was photoshopped because commercial aircraft were not allowed to fly anywhere near those towers.
If you were creating a documentary, why would you screw it up so badly ? What else did they screw up ?
I've been on at least 2 commercial jets that flew out of La Guardia right over top of Manhattan flying north. The documentary states that the jets that hit the towers were out of place not because they were over Manhattan, but because they were flying south.
If I was making a documentary on 9/11, I might use stock photos from dates other than 9/11.
Except that on 9/11 one was flying south ( first impact ) and one was flying north ( second impact ).
Therefore "they" were not flying south.
Thank you for pointing out some more propaganda. ;-)
Isn't it amazing how memories fade...
I guess you don't remember this either :
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/air-force-one-backup-rattle...
Guess what ? In the cropped screen capture I posted above, that plane IS flying north.
Good thing you don't make documentaries, huh ?
You guessed wrong. Are you trying to make a point?
I don't understand what you mean by that.
This site proves otherwise, as does my personal experience:
http://flightaware.com/live/airport_status_bigmap.rvt?airport=KLGA
Right now I'm watching 3 flight paths that went right over south Manhattan - from the NE.
Here is a video which shows an airplane flying past the towers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpKn2au9KKI
Your depth perception is worse than mine.
Your video shows the plane in the correct location, the Hudson river corridor.
It is NOT over the towers.
As far as your flightaware site, just watched for over a half hour and NO commercial flights passed OVER lower Manhattan.
Might I suggest a map reading course ?
As far as your personal experience, if you are directly over Manhattan, how exactly did you see Manhattan ?
X-Ray vision ?
Good drugs ?
- just asking.
I'll remind you again what you wrote, which I've repeatedly demonstrated to be FALSE:
Perhaps you should click on a KLGA origin/destination plane to see its flight plan laid out in dotted lines. I stand by my statement that in no way is Manhattan off limits for commercial traffic.
BTW, LaGuardia is one of at least 3 international airports that serve NYC. Try out this one:
http://flightaware.com/live/airport_status_bigmap.rvt?airport=KJFK
2 planes have a flight path right over lower Manhattan as I type this.
http://flightaware.com/live/airport_status_bigmap.rvt?airport=KEWR
also has some Boston and transatlantic flights that fly over Manhattan.
I looked out the window. Why are you trying to pretend that Manhattan is not much wider than a street? Have you even been there? Are you calling me a liar? What's with your childish attitude anyway?
Another link:
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/2320673
Really ?
Now I have to question if YOU have ever been in a commercial airliner.
I have. Depending on the altitude you can't see shit below you.
Have I ever been in Manhattan ? I was born in the Bronx, need I say more ?
I suggest you look again at that pic in the first post and rethink your obvious position of it being a normal sight.
Maybe you should use your glasses this time since you missed the engines the first time.
Either way I am done with your hissy fits. I won't be back. Have a great life.
IOW, you think I'm a liar. Nice one.
Now you're telling me (and everyone else) to ignore their lying eyes and believe you instead. Sorry, I trust my experience more than your assertions.
It won't change my conclusion.
Again with the assumptions. I didn't "miss the engines" because they're not relevant. They're not relevant unless you make a totally unsupportable assumption - that the photo was taken on 9/11, of a plane that hit the towers.
Questioning your assumptions, disproving your claims, and objecting to your tone are "hissy fits". Got it. If you're gone, you're gone. I'll try to have as great a life as possible, even with the massive hole your absence will create.
one way to prove that!!
sing me some Westside story!
:P
*runs*